time that takes place in a nonlinear and non-mechanical way.
This is why anthropological and sociological qualitative surveys, such as that of Norbert Alter, will formally distinguish three stages: that of invention, the moment of creation of something new, such as a new molecule in the pharmaceutical field, a new digital technology, a new agricultural technique, a new distribution system, a new model of management; that of innovation, which is the social process by which an invention is diffused through digital and “pre-digital” social networks that are supportive to the interplay of actors in favor or against this or that change; and that of reception, which is the moment when the invention is transformed into an object or a service that must correspond to a use, to a material or symbolic utility, and therefore to a problem to be solved, in a professional or domestic space.
Throughout the process, “invention” is often transformed. The transformation, reinterpretation or translation, depending on the theoretical approaches, of the invention conditions its progress through a company, an administration or an NGO. It is even very often observed that one of the conditions of success of an invention is it has been reinterpreted throughout this itinerary up to its arrival at the final user’s home, whether this be a company or a consumer. Innovation in anthropology is part of a collective process of change made up of the interplay of actors, in which relations of power and cooperation, energy, logistics and the magico-religious intertwine.
4.3. The force of constraints or innovation as a process of insertion in a field of contradictory forces
The anthropology of innovation is a strategic approach that shows that actors act under constraint, either to trigger change or, conversely, to slow it down. The empirical observation, linked to the realization of numerous qualitative field surveys, is that there is no change, and therefore no innovation, without the existence of constraints prior to the interplay of actors. The lockdown linked to COVID-19 is an exceptional example of this, since it has blocked almost all population mobility in a very large number of countries. The containment constraint makes it possible to understand what emerges, what is maintained or what disappears. It is an “upstream” constraint that corresponds to what is also called the forces that govern us, whether these forces are the “invisible hand of the market”, God, multinational corporations, fate, the fatum of the Romans or the ananké (Ἀνάγκη) of the Greeks, predestination, determinism, nature, the Shì 势, the course of events in Chinese thought, or habitus in the social sciences.
At the same time, once the innovation process has been triggered, it appears that the actors are confronted with a whole series of material, social and symbolic constraints that make it possible to understand the human dimension of the diffusion of an innovation. We can identify 11 of these, but of course there may be fewer or more. The important thing to remember is that these constraints rationally explain why some actors favor, prevent or allow change to take place.
Let us take the very general question of frugal consumption. If we try to get French consumers to buy French products, which is a new practice from the consumers’ point of view, and that these products are more expensive than Spanish or Dutch products, depending on the season, we understand that the constraint of purchasing power limits French purchases. The constraint explains the discrepancy between the positive or negative representations associated with innovation and actual practices.
This means that there is not only an economic, technical or scientific rationality, but that there exists visible or subterranean social logic. Anthropology seeks to understand the logic of what appears irrational to an economist, a doctor or an engineer. These are the forces that organize the interplay of actors throughout the process of production of innovation up until its reception. To understand constraints is to understand the underground rationalities, the social logic that explain the unfolding of innovation processes.
The first five constraints that “delay” innovation processes are material: the time constraint, the space constraint, the budget or the purchasing power constraint. A more anthropological constraint is that of the system of concrete objects that will or will not allow the use of the invention. The last material constraint is that of available human energy. This is particularly important in innovations that affect the domestic space and thus the traditional division of tasks between men and women.
The three social constraints relate to learning, for example, the learning of a new digital technology, which, if it is too complex, will slow down its adoption; the importance of pre-digital or digital social networks that will play the role of prescriber or opponent of innovation; and the nature of group norms that often implicitly define what is prescribed, allowed or forbidden socially. The three symbolic and psychosocial constraints relate to mental load, i.e. the stress that can result from the adoption of an innovation; personal or professional identity, depending on whether or not it is questioned by the innovation; and perceived risks in relation to the novelty, whether it is a danger or a security measure.
The anthropology of innovation allows us to show that a technology does not exist in itself, but that it is the result of a whole process of social construction in terms of its emergence. External constraints play a triggering role in this process, and this can be found throughout its diffusion, with constraints acting as filters either in favor or against this novelty.
4.4. Conclusion
The anthropology of innovation clearly shows the complexity of the process of change, which requires simultaneous shifting through geographical mobility, through mobility over time with history, and through mobile knowledge depending on the scale of observation (Desjeux 2018). To innovate is to transgress, to take risks, either to be dismissed or marginalized depending on the situation. This shows that innovation is not given and therefore explains the importance of constraints as drivers of innovation.
Today, with global warming, the risk of pandemics or war, the question of innovation is being reversed. Since the 18th century, i.e. since the beginning of the coal age, the industrial revolution and consumer society, most innovations have been organized around five objectives: simplifying uses through industry, chemistry and fossil energy; saving time; spending less human energy by using industrial energy; increasing productivity and thus the quantity of goods consumed; and finally paying less by lowering the costs and prices of goods consumed.
With the new constraint of sustainable consumption, innovation must help to limit the quantity of goods consumed and increase their durability, which often increases costs and prices, which thus contradicts innovation processes that have been going on for more than two centuries. Some innovations, such as cooking more from fresh products, increase the mental burden of some social actors, mainly women at home. Some of these innovations contradict the purchasing power constraints of the lower middle classes, even if none of this is automatic. Innovating today requires changing the reasoning and methods of the innovation processes that have been organizing our societies for 250 years.
4.5. References
Akrich, M., Latour, B., Callon, M. (2006). Sociologie de la traduction : textes fondateurs. Presses des Mines, Paris.
Alter, N. (2000). Innovation Ordinaire. PUF, Paris.
Christensen, C. (2002). The Innovator’s Dilemma. Harper Business Essentials, New York.
Creswell, R. (1975). Éléments d’ethnologie. Armand Colin, Paris.
Desjeux, D. (2018). The Anthropological Perspective of the World. The Inductive Method Illustrated, Peter Lang, Brussels.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1964). Le geste et la parole II, Albin Michel, Paris.
Malinowski, B. (2002). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Routledge, London.
